← All Phrases

“reason to believe”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 1474,202 judgments

The decision most relied on for reason to believe is CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (320 ITR 561), cited in 1,673 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on reason to believe

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das
103 ITR 437 · 1976 · Supreme Court
721
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

PCIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
395 ITR 677 · 2017 · High Court
471
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on an investigation wing/appraisal report, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, are beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
256 ITR 1 · 2002 · High Court
439
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot reopen an assessment under Section 147 based on a mere change of opinion regarding the same material available during the original assessment. Reopening requires fresh, tangible material or information that leads to a reason to believe income has escaped assessment.

Judgments citing reason to believe

Late Sh. Rajesh Chabra Legal Heir Ankur Chhabra, Punjab vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3) Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 22/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 22/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Late Shri Rajesh Chabra, Vs. Ito 1(3), Legal Heir Ankur Chhabra, बनाम Ludhiana Prop. M/S Roshan Lal & Sons, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana 141009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaupc1499D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Sराज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit , Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT , Sr.DR
Section 148

erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the case u/s 148 and further there was no reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition

Krishna Murthy Ella, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.585/Hyd/2023 & Sa No.10/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.585/Hyd/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Krishna Murthy Ella Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacpe6389G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

where the Assessing Officer had applied his own mind and unless the entire material coming before him to come to his prima facie reason to believe, then reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is valid. Further, at the time of examining the validity of reopening of the assessment what ... towards benefit derived by the appellant for buy back of shares, but in absence of necessary reason to believe that income had been escaped assessment, the reopening of the assessment cannot be sustained. In this regard it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Guwahati High

Lks Bullion (Import and Export) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 382/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.382/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 L.K.S. Bullion (Import & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Export) Pvt.Ltd. Ward-2(1)(3) 368, Lks House, Ahmedabad – 380 014 V/S. Khetarpal-Ni-Pole Manek Chowk Ahmedabad -380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 7369 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/08/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 18/12/2017 By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income L.K.S. Bullion (Import & Export) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

found in the bank statement of M/s Vishnu Trading Co. The AO recorded his reasons for satisfaction for reopening and had a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. This belief was based on the substantial material provided by the DDIT (Inv.), which warranted further investigation. It is also ... validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The correct test is whether the Assessing Officer had a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. This principle is well established in judicial precedents and "reason to believe" does not mean that